-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add scenario 12 for chaining from a trusted key #96
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good, only one minor terminology suggestion.
scenarios.md
Outdated
**Implications of this requirement** | ||
|
||
1. Users must be able to use the chain of trust to obtain per-package trusted keys, verified by a trusted root. | ||
1. Users must be able to access the chain of delegations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe we can consolidate these first two, since "delegations" and "per-package" may be referring to things that don't necessarily apply to Nv2. Perhaps:
1. Users must be able to to access a chain of trust that links the signing key to a trusted root.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I changed it to something similar. I wanted to keep the idea that a cert chain should be scoped for a particular artifact (to avoid universally trusted keys), but I agree that the two implications are a bit redundant. Does the new text work?
Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Are others in agreement? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, just a minor typo fix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. +1 to @sudo-bmitch's comment.
Co-authored-by: Brandon Mitchell <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marina Moore <[email protected]>
Thanks @sudo-bmitch and @shizhMSFT! I force pushed to fix the DCO |
This is just the first, less controversial scenario from #66.
cc @sudo-bmitch @SteveLasker